President Obama has issued an alarming executive order that would allow the government to crackdown of U.S. citizens and other individuals who “indirectly” oppose U.S.-backed Yemeni President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Hadi was the right-hand man to the prior dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and won an “election” composed only of himself. We, of course, immediately embraced Hadi and the Obama Administration is now threatening anyone who opposes him, including our own citizens. The Administration appears delighted that, while opponents are not welcomed in the country, American drones are.
The executive order Wednesday gives the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” the political transition in Yemen, including U.S. citizens who are “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.” One Obama official is quoted as saying that the order is meant to deter people opposing the regime to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .” That would be called a chilling effect designed to deter opponents of the regime.
One of the greatest threats posed by this order is that it places such actions in the the administrative law process on the agency level. Citizens are given fewer protections in that process and agencies given absurd levels of deference by federal courts. Various organizations have complained about that process in being detailed as aiders or abettors of terrorism. Glenn Greenwald has an article below discussing the new order.
The executive order appears to fall into that ever-widening category of extreme presidential powers claimed under the “Trust me I am Obama” rationale. Once again, Democrats and liberals are silent despite the fact that they would be outraged if this had been done by Bush. Once again, Obama’s failure to respect constitutional principles are excused by saying that others like Romney would be worse. This short-sighted and relativistic approach by Obama supporters will likely come back and haunt them when later presidents not of their liking invoking the same authoritarian measures created by Obama. What will be said then? These were really just for Obama? If Obama can do this with Yemen, how about critics of Israel or Saudi Arabia? You can question the factual need to support “stability” in these countries, but the question is one of the authority to order it. Once the authority is accepted, the rest is left to the discretion of the President, whoever that may be.
Note that the government already has ample means to move against any terrorist organizations and a material support law that has been denounced as so ill-defined as to cover the most minor interaction or contact with targeted groups. It also has laws barring efforts of citizens to lend military or violent means to support opposition to the regime. This executive order was intentionally written broadly to capture areas that are presumed to be protected like free speech.
While Section 11 contains vague boilerplate language, the obvious thrust of the law is to allow for greater government action against opponents to the Yemeni government than already exists on the books. Note that such opponents would not be terrorists to be nailed under this law, just indirect threats to stability.
The Administration has not shown how the existing laws would not be entirely ample in combatting unlawful activities by U.S. citizens and others in the country. Now however you can have your property seized and pulled into a government investigation if you “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services” that are viewed by Obama officials of “indirectly” threatening or obstructing the “stability” of the Yemeni government. Of course, nothing is more stable than an election with only one candidate — an election praised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a great triumph for democracy.
This executive order was written by people without a scintilla of concern for free speech or due process. It also reflects a perception of immunity by the Obama Administration when it comes to civil liberties.
It appears that a man elected in an election of one fits nicely into our plans for fighting Al Qaeda. As a result, things like the first amendment in the United States are deemed as expendable by our own supreme leader.
Here is the executive order:
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF PERSONS THREATENING
THE PEACE, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF YEMENBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen’s peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. I further find that these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:
Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to:
(a) have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen;
(b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in subsection (a) of this section;
(c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in subsection (a) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(d) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
Sec. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that
because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
Source: Washington Post and Salon
“Many Yemenis are happy with this order.” — yemenianalyst
No doubt the only Yemeni to run for president — with the support of the United States government — counts himself among them.
“I further find that these actions [somehow related to Yemen] constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.” — President Chicken Little
“unusual and extraordinary”? I thought “extraordinary” meant “unusual”. Needless and pointless redundancy always marks bad rhetoric.
“national emergency”? Over something completely unspecified, somehow having to do with some place called “Yemen”? Aw, fer cryin’ out loud.
What a piss-poor excuse for “the most powerful nation on earth.” More like scared shit-less of its own shadow.
Let Professor Turley note that I have not remained silent in the face of this ludicrous assertion of Presidential omnipotence.
Many Yemenis are happy with this order
It seems that the writer did not understand that Salih and his family members are the targets of this order. They have the money while I do not care about this order because my money are already frozen by God before I even received them. I have no money to be frozen.
Barkin Dog:
As Condoleeza Rice once said to Douglas Feith (whom General Tommy Franks accurately called “the dumbest man on planet earth”):
“If we want the Israeli position, we’ll call in their ambassador.”
Since Iran has never threatened or attacked America and since I don’t give a damn about the position of the Apartheid Zionist Entity — since I don’t support theocratic, racist, apartheid governments — it makes no difference to me whether Iran has a nuclear weapon or not. The Soviets had thousands of them and the Apartheid Zionists have hundreds. So what? The more America and the A.Z.E. persist in attacking other countries, the more other countries will obtain nuclear weapons out of sheer self-preservation. If America really doesn’t want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, then America should stop threatening Iran and make suitable bi-lateral diplomatic deals with them instead of calling in the A.Z.E.’s ambassador so as to know that to think or do next.
With the A.Z.E. tail wagging the American dog so mercilessly, I don’t hear any barking from the dog — just a teeth-chattering whimper from the unrelenting whiplash.
“Liberals”? What “liberals”? As Chris Hedges writes in Death of the Liberal Class:
“Liberals”? What “liberals”? I don’t see no stinking “liberals.” Don’t you know, Professor, that “we’re at
warAUMF”? That means we’ve got orders from Deputy Dubya Bush to go shopping and buy a few tickets to Disney World because this whole Saddam Hussein thing won’t last more than six months and won’t even cost 60 billion dollars — which the Iraqis will gladly pay out of their oil revenues. Honest injun! So get with thewarAUMF, Professor, lest PresidentBushObama mistake you for a mediocre liberal servant of the crony-corporate fascism that must oppress us in order to stamp out “unpatriotic” liberalism — in the name of national security.Forget not who the al qaeda movement is and what nation financed and empowered it. When the So viets were in Afghanistan we did not want them there. We found folks in the Muslim Brotherhood to go fight them. For instance, al Zawarhi from Egypt: “The Doctor”. After the Soviets left we abandoned the scene of the crimes. The Muslim Brotherhood and Mujahdeen (sp) morphed into al qaeda. Many were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is a dangerous place. All of the middle east is a dangerous place. Yemen is the fertile ground Now. Iran is the power in the region that foments killers and gorrillas (pardon the pun) throughout the region–even pirates from Somalia and Yemen. Now we are in Afghanistan and there are some who might wish that the Russians had stayed there all along. Its kind of like that obnoxious commerical on television. “I fell and I cant get up!”
My take on today’s article by Jonathan Turley is that there is some cheap shot political rocks being thrown against President Obama. Yemen is the present day fertile ground that al qaeda is using to launch their next attack. When it happens, Romney, McCain, Palin, Boner and the rest of the RepubliCons will say that he is Obumbo.
In my prior life as a humanoid I travelled to Egypt, Afghanistan and some of the other places where al Zawari the Doctor and others live and breathe. I am a liberal on American civil rights and social policy but I am not no dumschmuck on things like Yemen and al qaeda. Iran is going to have a nuclear bomb if we dont stop them and that my fine furred freinds in the dog pack is something we do not want to come about.
“One wonders why he hasn’t done that to Saudi Arabia, since they bankrolled 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.”
You mean the Saudis finance U.S. false flag operations?
Obama 2012: “Not The Worst, But Just as Bad”
“Once again, Democrats and liberals are silent despite the fact that they would be outraged if this had been done by Bush.” Jonathan Turley
A bad official act like this one deserves criticism on the basis of its own demerits, irrespective of which, or both, or neither of our conjoined corporate parties approves or disapproves of it. Theoretically, the “politically disinterested” courts would not care one bit who argues which side of a case devoid of merit on its face. Nevertheless, since Professor Turley did resort to the argumentum ad hominem, I’d like to offer a paraphrase that at least acknowledges the truly bipartisan sources of the “silence” he decries. To wit:
As a matter of fact, when it comes to President Obama’s draconian assaults on civil and human rights, he has encountered far more resistance from the so-called “left” — or “fucking retards,” as his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel used to call us — than he has from the rabid Republican reactionaries who can’t believe how easily they’ve bullied yet another Republican-wannabe “Democrat” into doing what they could never do themselves while muting their normal outrage at blowjobs and pregnant women and queer weddings long enough to let the blame for their beloved fascism fall on the Democrats who stupidly enable it for them.
Like the dog that did not bark in the night, when Republicans do not scream bloody murder at anything a corporate Clinton or Obama (but I repeat myself) does, you know they approve wholeheartedly.
I trust that this clarifies for Professor Turley the truly bipartisan sound of silence that he finds so disturbing. As a test of their patriotic sincerity, let the rabid Republican reactionaries now lead the charge against the “unitary executive” and its encroachments upon the (now practically non-existent) constitutional rights of non-corporate persons, citizen and non-citizen alike. I won’t hold my breath until this happens, but it does make for a momentarily entertaining thought experiment.
As this thread by Professor Turley shows, we have truly lost control of our government. The main reasons seem to be graft, corruption, and executive powers. I propose that we form a national movement with the objective being to hold a Constitutional Convention in 2013.
It would seem that a quorum for a Constitutional Convention requires thirty-four states, and that constitutional amendments can be passed by thirty-two of those states being in agreement.
The proposed amendments should be broad and speak to the mechanisms that have currently crippled our representation. I propose five, listed below, knowing that all will not be successful, if any.
The movement needs to be non-partisan with all acknowledging the need to regain our representative government and should speak to major structural issues only.
I wanted to work much more on this before posting, but there are some good minds on this blog and issues that would take me months of study to write competently about can be accomplished much quicker by others participating.
Pressure on state representatives needs to be strenuously applied so that the state representatives are compelled to petition Congress for an Article V Convention.
1.0 Proposed Amendments
1.1 No corporate access to the Bill Of Rights
1.1.1 Details related to 1.1
Wipe out Citizens United.
Major campaign finance reform.
Possibly make all campaigns federally funded (possible amendment proposal).
Force NAB to provide their “public service” by airing political media ads at no cost with equal airtime for all candidates.
Rein in corporate lobbyist, or attempt to prohibit altogether.
1.2 Limit Executive ability to wage war
1.2.1 Details related to 1.2
At a minimum, be brought in line with the intent of the War Powers Resolution Act (50 USC § 1541-1548).
I’m sure there are many pitfalls to this proposal as the Executive has the authority to sign treaties and agreements and dictate foreign policy. With Congress having abdicated its right to declare war through entropy some way must be found to limit the executive wars.
1.3 Rescind Patriot Act and all other rights infringing acts/executive orders passed since 9/11
1.4 Eliminate the Electoral College
1.5 Restore Congress’ right to mint money.
2.0 Methods Of Organization
2.1 Non-partisan
Movement needs to be non-partisan to gain as much support as possible. This will hopefully be accomplished by keeping the proposed amendments to fundamental issues. The basic idea is to get our representative government back, and then we can discuss other divisive issues through our representative government.
2.2 State Based/Organized
2.3 501c(3) business structure.
2.4 Funding through personal donations
3.0 Justify the need for a Constitutional Convention
3.1 Develop a group of qualified writers and speakers (historians, constitutional scholars, constitutional layers, political scientist, and economists) to produce essays and appear on media shows to argue the need for a Constitutional Convention.
This will be at both a national and local level.
3.2 At a local level hold community events discussing the need for a Constitutional Convention utilizing the works from 3.1.
4.0 How to apply pressure so the state legislatures feel compelled to petition for a Constitutional Convention
4.1 Gain the support of unions, businesses, and individuals.
4.2 Rolling general strikes from state to state with individuals and union participation.
Participants do not hit the streets, but stay at their place of residence. What can the authorities do: send out the National Guard, bust into peoples houses and force them to go to work at gunpoint?
There are twenty-two work days on average in a month. On average each state would have a general strike every two-and-one-third months (if all fifty states participate).
Once every two-and-one-half or three months hold a national general strike.
This is a very crude outline, but hopefully it can be fleshed out in time.
The statutes cited in the executive order were acts of abdication by Congress. The order itself could easily have been drafted by John Yoo, edited by David Addington and implemented by Dick Cheney. Were the Constitution still deemed to limit executive authority, White House counsel would have tossed this piece of garbage where it belongs. Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus resigned for less serious reasons.
Do You Need Laptop Driver?
laptop-driver.blogspot dot com
Anybody familiar with our glowing history regarding the Bonus Army Encampment in D.C.in 1932? MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton were all part of the charge that trampled, bayoneted, and tear gassed hundreds of WWI veterans and their families (women, children, babies) in what was noted at the time as greatest concentration of fighting troops in Washington since 1865.
Twelve years later these 1932 baby killers were heralded as heroes for their service in WWII and we even elected one of them to the Presidency.
Other than our banks loaning money to Bolivia and Paraguay for the Chaco War, we were not involved in any wars in 1932 but the Hoover Administration saw enemies at home and ruthlessly killed them and burned them out.
These WWI veterans had lost their homes and jobs thanks to the Wall Street/Banks driven Great Depression and were demanding that the $500 bonus scheduled to be paid in 1945 be paid NOW. The House voted to pay it but the Senate voted not to and then adjourned.
Hey, what’s a moral government to do?
http://rt.com/news/al-qaeda-usa-sanctions-yemen-443/
‘Al-Qaeda manipulated the US into putting sanctions on Yemen’
Published: 17 May, 2012, 08:30
Excerpt:
The US is moving to place sanctions on anyone who opposes what Washington calls a democratic process in Yemen. Anti-war activist Susan Lindauer says this brings the US right into Al-Qaeda’s trap.
Yemen is fighting an alleged Al-Qaeda insurgency with military support from the United States. On top of this, the Arab state continues to suffer from months of political unrest, with anti-government protesters demanding more reforms.
RT: Do members of the peaceful opposition in Yemen fall under these new US sanctions?
Susan Lindauer: Bad news for Barack Obama – the United States has played right into the hands of Al-Qaeda. It’s been a long-term ambition of Al-Qaeda to manipulate the United States into putting sanctions on Yemen, so that they can alienate the very impoverished Yemeni people from the central government. Yemen is a scrabble poor country, desperately poor. They are running out of water, they have no food, they have limited hospitals, limited educational opportunities.
Yemen sits right next toward Saudi Arabia. Ever since the bombing of the USS Cole, Al-Qaeda has made it clear that it wants to establish a base inside Yemen to attack the Saudi oil fields right next door. And anything that they can do to alienate the Yemeni people from the central authority and the West, the United States’ cause [would be] a great victory for them. It’s a very bad decision by the United States.
RT: The United States has significantly stepped up its involvement in Yemen’s fight against Al-Qaeda. Is it a part of Washington’s “war on terror” or, perhaps, there may be some ulterior geopolitical motives behind it?
SL: The US only sees the world in black and white. They see terrorism and the outcome of violence, but not the root causes of poverty and hopelessness, or jealousy of the gross economic inequities between Yemen and its extravagantly wealthy neighbors in the Gulf Region and Saudi Arabia. Those Gulf countries should immediately pump economic aid for education, hospitals, water facilities, and food. Washington would not have to spend a dollar. Arab countries should be capable of doing this on their own.
RT: Yemen is in a key position in the region, but the US does not have a military base there. Will it be having one?
SL: I would say they have secret military bases all over the place, don’t they? They have drone capacity, and they first tested the drones in Yemen. Over the past few years Yemen was the first target of the drones. The US has a very strong secret military capacity in this country.
RT: Drone attacks, inflated military presence – the US claims this would help make Yemen more stable and secure. And yet, could that be more about beginning another covert war in the region, rather than promoting a democracy?
SL: Drones never build democracy anywhere. Drone attacks feed chaos and destabilize the civilian population. Yemen has never been more insecure. Economic aid must start flowing into the country, or it will be lost for good. (end)
test
http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/obama-pakistan-nato-us/
Obama issues Yemen exec order
US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
”Michael Hastings is on the show to talk about Pakistan finally being invited to the NATO summit, President Obama issuing a veto threat to the new NDAA and has issued an executive order regarding Yemen, that many argue could stifle free speech all the way here in the US. Then, we talk to Kevin Zeese about the upcoming NATO summit and how both protesters and police are preparing. And what can FOIA’s documents from the Department of Homeland Security tell us about how they monitor political movements?”
JH,
Thanks. Steinbeck did. Who has the powerful voice today?
Signing statements don’t amend laws passed by congress.
Indefinate detention of American Citizens is the law of the land and any president even one who signed a signing statement can do it. Cry for the beloved country!
If we consider the long term possibilities some are these:
Ameica continues to fight for world hegemony, although lacking USSR to use as a threat, it manufacturs other threats to stability. Now stability is defined as the preacher defines the Bible, his way.
The muslim/Islam threat is a faux one. Is in any way the Islamic world expanding in terms of non-Islamic countries subverted. I don’t think so. But it is held up as a threat to keep us at war.
The real expansion of China’s influence is not mediasized.
The attempts by África to oppose commercial takeover, more than their domination today through world market control of primary products, is successfully thwarted for the moment.
Keep tuned in. There are certainly more executive orders already written, to be issued when the stars approve and public manipultation succeeds.
Nothing succeeds like success, unfortunately for true freedom.
BarkinDog, not to get the fur up on your back or anything, but would that make Yemen “the good war”, “the right war”, “the preemptive war”? I think your “bomb, bomb, Iran” answers for you.